Waller v. County of Sutter ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL SHANE WALLER, No. 2:22-cv-00246-JAM-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 14 COUNTY OF SUTTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This Section 1983 action arises from a March 9, 2020 19 incident in which Russell Shane Waller (“Plaintiff”) alleges 20 three Sutter County sheriff deputies arrived at his home, kicked 21 in his front door, slammed him against a wall, tackled him onto 22 the floor, assaulted him, placed him in handcuffs, and unlawfully 23 arrested him. See Sec. Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 17-18, ECF No. 7. 24 Before the Court is Sutter County and Sutter County Sheriff’s 25 Office’s (“Defendants”1) motion to dismiss. See Mot., ECF No. 9- 26 1 As Defendants note, Plaintiff names both Sutter County and 27 Sutter County Sheriff’s Office as Defendants; however, the County Sherriff’s Office is not a separate entity, but a department of 28 the County. See Mot. at 2 n.2. 1 1. Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss the fifth cause of 2 action for Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 3 436 U.S. 658 (1978)(“Monell”) liability. Id.; see also SAC at 4 21-27.2 Plaintiff filed an opposition, see Opp’n, ECF No. 15, to 5 which Defendants replied, see Reply, ECF No. 16. For the reasons 6 below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.3 7 8 II. OPINION 9 A. Legal Standard 10 A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the complaint as not 11 alleging sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. Fed. R. 12 Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss [under 13 12(b)(6)], a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 14 accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible 15 on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While 17 “detailed factual allegations” are unnecessary, the complaint 18 must allege more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” 20 Id. “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, 21 the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences 22 from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim 23 entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 24 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 25 2 The Court acknowledges and appreciates the parties’ meet and 26 confer efforts and narrowing of the issues for review. See Mot. at 2 n.1. 27 3 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for June 7, 2022. 1 B. Analysis 2 A public entity is subject to liability under Section 1983 3 only when a violation of a federally protected right can be 4 attributed to: (1) an express municipal policy, such as an 5 ordinance, regulation or policy statement, Monell, 436 U.S. at 6 691-692; (2) a “widespread practice that, although not 7 authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is ‘so 8 permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage’ 9 with the force of law”, City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 10 U.S. 112, 127 (1988); (3) the decision of a person with “final 11 policymaking authority,” id. at 123; or (4) inadequate training 12 that is deliberately indifferent to an individual’s 13 constitutional rights, City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 14 388 (1989). To properly state a Monell claim, allegations in a 15 complaint “may not simply recite the elements . . . but must 16 contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair 17 notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself 18 effectively.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. Cty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 19 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). 20 Here, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s Monell claim 21 is factually supported. See Mot. at 7-9; Opp’n at 14-15. The 22 allegations supporting Plaintiff’s fifth Monell cause of action 23 are set forth in paragraphs 64-80. SAC ¶¶ 64-80. After careful 24 review of these paragraphs, the Court finds they are wholly 25 conclusory and therefore insufficient. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 26 678 (explaining the court need not “accept as true a legal 27 conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”) Additionally, 28 most of Plaintiff’s legal argument was in the portion of his 1 brief that violated the Court’s page limit for opposition 2 memoranda and thus was not considered. See Order re Filing 3 Requirements at 1, ECF No. 2-2; see also Opp’n at 16-18. But 4 even the limited legal argument the Court did consider, see 5 Opp’n at 14-15, does not save this cause of action because the 6 issue is a lack of factual support. The Court therefore grants 7 Defendants’ motion. 8 The only remaining issue is whether Plaintiff should be 9 granted leave to amend. Courts dismissing claims under Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) have discretion to permit 11 amendment, and there is a strong presumption in favor of leave to 12 amend. Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051- 13 52 (9th Cir. 2003). “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave 14 to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the 15 complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Id. at 1052. 16 Defendants argue leave should be denied because Plaintiff is 17 already on his second amended complaint and the parties 18 exhaustively met and conferred on this issue. Mot. at 10. 19 According to Defendants, it is clear Plaintiff has no facts to 20 add thus amendment would be futile. Id.; Reply at 5. The Court 21 agrees. Eminence Cap., LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. 22 23 III. SANCTIONS 24 Violations of the Court’s standing order require the 25 offending counsel, not the client, to pay $50.00 per page over 26 the page limit to the Clerk of Court. Order re Filing 27 Requirements at 1. Here, Plaintiff’s opposition exceeded the 28 Court’s page limit by 3 pages. See Opp’n. Accordingly, nee en nnn nen en nnn nn ee nnn I OIE IIE EE 1 Plaintiff’s counsel must send a check payable to the Clerk for 2 the Eastern District of California for $150.00 no later than 3 seven (7) days from the date of this order. 4 5 Iv. ORDER 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS WITH 7 PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: June 30, 2022 10 kA 1 teiren staves odermacr 7008 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28